Really interesting debate during the first two rounds that unfortunately was forfeited + conceded in the latter 2 rounds. Fun thing to read through while waiting for work to end tho :D
As an atheist I considered not voting on the debate at all due to my own bias possibly interfering with how I analyze both sides. Con forfeiting all rounds while Pro presented a case in favor of Islam though made it a lot easier to determine a winner, as Pro was the only one to present arguments and sources that all went unchallenged.
All sides forfeited
Ironically what first appeared to be a very interesting debate to read through turned into a double forfeit. Pro forfeited all rounds and conceded to forfeiting all rounds at the end of the debate when they actually posted. Con was present for all rounds, but did not present any arguments arguing for their side and instead just resorted to jokes. A simple statistic of Taco Bell locations vs authentic restaurant locations, or any source suggesting that non-taco bell restaurants fare better financially or critically than authentic restaurants, or ANY kind of source/statistic would have won the debate for their side.
Unfortunately they did not make their case, so I have to award a tie vote, since neither side provided a sufficient argument at any point
Both sides presented solid arguments and cited sources for both benefits and drawbacks of social media as a whole, which is a pretty tricky argument to win. This debate may as well have argued over whether or not the internet as a whole is a boon or a bane, which naturally has clear benefits and enormous drawbacks just like social media itself. Both sides argued their case quite clearly, successfully, and with evidence, so I have to award a tie vote.
